Obama to order immunity for young illegal immigrants

[werepossum]

Really? You don't see the difference between DOMA and immigration?

All you're doing is framing the issue in particular way. Please show proof that non-enforcement of DOMA gained him any votes or potential votes; otherwise it's just your opinion that the issue is about non-enforcement of laws to gain votes.

More coincidences!

 

[michal1980]

Really? You don't see the difference between DOMA and immigration?

All you're doing is framing the issue in particular way. Please show proof that non-enforcement of DOMA gained him any votes or potential votes; otherwise it's just your opinion that the issue is about non-enforcement of laws to gain votes.

So now becuase your argument is dieing you have to drag the DOMA into the fold?

His gay base was putting the heat on him for not supporting them enough so he turned to ignoring a law to appease them..

Now the hispanic base was giving him heat, so he is ignoring the law.

Its all about getting the votes. If it wasn't he would have done this years ago.

 

[fskimospy]

Tell you what. You provide for me a link to President Bush legalizing hundreds of thousands of illegals and I'll look for some conservative outrage. Until that time I'll continue to believe that Bush, although very pro-amnesty, never took it upon himself to unilaterally change the law to what he wanted but could not get through Congress.

So now it's a question of numbers? I thought it was a question of 'defying the law' or some such nonsense. Exactly how many people can the president defer action on before it becomes illegal in your mind? Obama is using the exact same power that every president for the last 40 years has used. It is very telling, although not very surprising, that conservatives had no problem with Bush doing it but are suddenly up in arms about Obama.

The reason is crystal clear too. The move by Obama is enormously popular, but Republicans can't support things that Obama does so they need to find some way to oppose it without really opposing it. When you can't argue on substance you argue on process, and that's what they're doing.

And while you SAY it's "Delusional and obviously false" that "progressives want an imperial President who does whatever he wants, without regard to the law", every single time he does this (or Clinton did this) you guys are leading the cheers. Coincidence?

Considering that Obama's act is widely considered well within his powers of deciding who to prosecute with limited resources, it's odd to claim that he is committing a legal act 'without regard to the law'.

I do find it interesting that conservatives suddenly have a problem with deferred action when a Democrat is in office though. Coincidence?

 

[werepossum]

So now it's a question of numbers? I thought it was a question of 'defying the law' or some such nonsense. Exactly how many people can the president defer action on before it becomes illegal in your mind? Obama is using the exact same power that every president for the last 40 years has used. It is very telling, although not very surprising, that conservatives had no problem with Bush doing it but are suddenly up in arms about Obama.

The reason is crystal clear too. The move by Obama is enormously popular, but Republicans can't support things that Obama does so they need to find some way to oppose it without really opposing it. When you can't argue on substance you argue on process, and that's what they're doing.



Considering that Obama's act is widely considered well within his powers of deciding who to prosecute with limited resources, it's odd to claim that he is committing a legal act 'without regard to the law'.

I do find it interesting that conservatives suddenly have a problem with deferred action when a Democrat is in office though. Coincidence?

Funny that just a few months ago Obama too stated that this was outside of his authority. Coincidence?

 

[fskimospy]

Funny that just a few months ago Obama too stated that this was outside of his authority. Coincidence?

He sure didn't.

 

[michal1980]

He sure didn't.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...nge-immigration-laws-on-my-own/1#.T9tjXJh62So

Now, I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books, but that doesn't mean I don't know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cause," Obama said

hmm, last year he said he had to uphold the laws. This year he says he doesn't have too. which is it?

 

[michal1980]

So now it's a question of numbers? I thought it was a question of 'defying the law' or some such nonsense. Exactly how many people can the president defer action on before it becomes illegal in your mind? Obama is using the exact same power that every president for the last 40 years has used. It is very telling, although not very surprising, that conservatives had no problem with Bush doing it but are suddenly up in arms about Obama.

The reason is crystal clear too. The move by Obama is enormously popular, but Republicans can't support things that Obama does so they need to find some way to oppose it without really opposing it. When you can't argue on substance you argue on process, and that's what they're doing.



Considering that Obama's act is widely considered well within his powers of deciding who to prosecute with limited resources, it's odd to claim that he is committing a legal act 'without regard to the law'.

I do find it interesting that conservatives suddenly have a problem with deferred action when a Democrat is in office though. Coincidence?

when did bush come out and say he wasn't going to enforce imgiration law?

 

[fskimospy]

when did bush come out and say he wasn't going to enforce imgiration law?

Obama didn't say he wasn't going to enforce immigration law either, he said he was going to defer arrest and prosecution of some offenders to put his limited resources towards going after more dangerous individuals. Every president in modern times has done this, it's nothing new.

 

[fskimospy]

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...nge-immigration-laws-on-my-own/1#.T9tjXJh62So

hmm, last year he said he had to uphold the laws. This year he says he doesn't have too. which is it?

He most certainly does not say that he doesn't have to uphold the laws. Once again, deferred action has been done by every president for the last 4 decades or so and is entirely within the scope of the law.

 

[nehalem256]

And while you SAY it's "Delusional and obviously false" that "progressives want an imperial President who does whatever he wants, without regard to the law", every single time he does this (or Clinton did this) you guys are leading the cheers. Coincidence?

It is delusional and false.

Progressives want an imperial Democratic President who does whatever he wants without regard to the law.

 

[nehalem256]

He most certainly does not say that he doesn't have to uphold the laws. Once again, deferred action has been done by every president for the last 4 decades or so and is entirely within the scope of the law.

So please show where Bush granted work permits to any significant group of illegal immigrants.

Since it was done by every President, according to you, it should be easy

 

[fskimospy]

So please show where Bush granted work permits to any significant group of illegal immigrants.

Since it was done by every President, according to you, it should be easy

As already explained to you, Obama is not granting work permits to anyone. I'm not sure how you are not understanding this. What Obama is doing is deferring action. People are allowed to apply for work permits who are under a deferred status, but they are not being granted anything. What is the confusion?

As for Bush, he deferred action on thousands of Liberians facing deportation with nary a peep from the right. You're right, it was easy!

 

[Svnla]

40 percent of Fortune 500 companies are found by LEGAL immigrants or their offsprings = http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuarta...nies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/

Let see who they are: (just a small sample)

Google
Intel
Yahoo
Apple
eBay
ATT
Budweiser
Colgate
GE
IBM
McD
Walt Disney
Oracle
Clorox
Boeing
3M
Home Depot

Do we need more folks like those (smart, motivate, and LEGAL) to compete with other countries in the world? Or do we need more uneducated and unable to speak English peasants that ignore our immigration law? I vote for LEGALS over ILLEGALS anytime. Also, if you have to, you can get an engineer to pick fruits but there is no way you can get a fruit picker to draw/design/read a blueprint.

More in depth = http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/img/new-american-fortune-500-june-2011.pdf

 

[michal1980]

He most certainly does not say that he doesn't have to uphold the laws. Once again, deferred action has been done by every president for the last 4 decades or so and is entirely within the scope of the law.

he came out and said he wouldn't uphold the laws. He said he would not deport illegals.

The law says they should be deported.

What kind of world do you live in where 1 = 2?

 

[michal1980]

As already explained to you, Obama is not granting work permits to anyone. I'm not sure how you are not understanding this. What Obama is doing is deferring action. People are allowed to apply for work permits who are under a deferred status, but they are not being granted anything. What is the confusion?

As for Bush, he deferred action on thousands of Liberians facing deportation with nary a peep from the right. You're right, it was easy!

Wow, the double talk is strong here

Obama not granting work permits... people are allowed to apply for work permits.

If Obama does not rewrite the laws on the books by 'defering' action on them, then the illegals cannot get work permits.

Illegals can only get work permits because Obama changed the law.

Therefor, because of Obama's actions he is granting them work permits.

In Obamas own words

Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.

His actions are giving them work permits. Stop f-ing lieing.

 

[fskimospy]

he came out and said he wouldn't uphold the laws. He said he would not deport illegals.

The law says they should be deported.

What kind of world do you live in where 1 = 2?

This is incorrect, and it is showing a fundamental ignorance of how the US government operates. I can't be held responsible for your lack of knowledge.

Officials such as prosecutors and presidents have the legal discretion to allocate their limited resources in the best way they see fit. Not only have all prior presidents in modern times done this in regards to immigration, but thousands of officials all over the country do it every day. Obama's choice to use his discretion is entirely consistent with the law.

What kind of world do you live in where you think that massive numbers of public officials all over the country are engaging in personal rewriting of the legal code? Bizarre.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, the double talk is strong here

Obama not granting work permits... people are allowed to apply for work permits.

If Obama does not rewrite the laws on the books by 'defering' action on them, then the illegals cannot get work permits.

Illegals can only get work permits because Obama changed the law.

Therefor, because of Obama's actions he is granting them work permits.

Just so you know, repeating your lies about Obama rewriting laws doesn't make them any less a lie. You might think that allowing someone to apply for work permits is granting them work permits, but that would just show that you don't understand the meaning of words.

I strongly urge you to go learn something about how the US government functions, law enforcement in particular. If you believe that deferred action and prosecutorial discretion is a rewriting of the law you lack a basic understanding of how our country works.

His actions are giving them work permits. Stop f-ing lieing.

His actions are not giving them work permits, it is allowing them to apply for work permits. Stop lying.

 

[michal1980]

Just so you know, repeating your lies about Obama rewriting laws doesn't make them any less a lie. You might think that allowing someone to apply for work permits is granting them work permits, but that would just show that you don't understand the meaning of words.

I strongly urge you to go learn something about how the US government functions, law enforcement in particular. If you believe that deferred action and prosecutorial discretion is a rewriting of the law you lack a basic understanding of how our country works.



His actions are not giving them work permits, it is allowing them to apply for work permits. Stop lying.

I'm not lying. You get a gold medal in twisted logic olypmics to have written that sentence.

Without his actions ie re-writting of the law, they would not get work permits.

He said himself his actions would get them work permits.

 

[michal1980]

http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

seems to me that King Obama has little ground to actually comeout and not defend the laws

 

[Ninjahedge]

That would be an incorrect assumption on your part.

No, it isn't.

We have already shown that Americans do not WANT to pick strawberries (for a living).

We have also seen that MOST of the people yelling about this have jobs in other fields. How many strawberry-pickers have you seen reporting this, blogging this, or even quoted?

So no, it is not an assumption and no, it is not incorrect.

As am I. But jobs are slowly starting to trickle back which is good.

Trickle isn't cutting it. We have to slowly ramp up taxes and tariffs for outsourcing and imports to make EQUAL QUALITY goods competitive in our own consumer-heavy economy.

 

[Ninjahedge]

BTW, eskimo brings up one good point.

It seems like Obama is not granting a free pass to every illegal immigrant in teh states, but as he says, focusing our limited resources on the things we need to focus on.

An example would be, do we focus on the guys throwing out cigarette butts as litterbugs, people running red lights, or axe wielding psychotic murderers? All are crimes, but they definitely have an order of importance (and, ironically, sometimes it is the double-parker that gets more attention than the spousal abuser, but that is another topic).

It is also good to note that the issue is a popular approved one from many areas by voters in both parties. So why would a politician object to it?

The wording is pretty careful, they seem to be objecting to Obama DOING it, rather than to what he is actually doing. Add to it that all the presidents back to Reagan (and possibly Carter) did the same without this outrage and it just seems odd.

While the ISSUE may be debated, and discussed on what would be the best way to handle it, simply castigating the president for doing something that the American People want, that will harm few, if any, and that the past 4-5 presidents have done is just silly political bullshit.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not lying. You get a gold medal in twisted logic olypmics to have written that sentence.

Without his actions ie re-writting of the law, they would not get work permits.

He said himself his actions would get them work permits.

Stop lying. He did not say his actions would get people work permits, he said that it would allow them to apply for work permits. Why are you insisting on lying repeatedly?

You still have not addressed the fact that according to you, presidents, prosecutors, and local officials have been 'rewriting the law' for more than 4 decades now. Why were you not protesting this lawlessness in the past? Do you have a plan to reign it in? The only one I can think of is to supply all jurisdictions with unlimited prosecutorial resources. In light of this, what other programs do you plan to eliminate or what taxes will you raise to provide what will certainly be hundreds of billions and may stretch into trillions of dollars per year?

 

[Capt Caveman]

BTW, eskimo brings up one good point.

It seems like Obama is not granting a free pass to every illegal immigrant in teh states, but as he says, focusing our limited resources on the things we need to focus on.

An example would be, do we focus on the guys throwing out cigarette butts as litterbugs, people running red lights, or axe wielding psychotic murderers? All are crimes, but they definitely have an order of importance (and, ironically, sometimes it is the double-parker that gets more attention than the spousal abuser, but that is another topic).

It is also good to note that the issue is a popular approved one from many areas by voters in both parties. So why would a politician object to it?

The wording is pretty careful, they seem to be objecting to Obama DOING it, rather than to what he is actually doing. Add to it that all the presidents back to Reagan (and possibly Carter) did the same without this outrage and it just seems odd.

While the ISSUE may be debated, and discussed on what would be the best way to handle it, simply castigating the president for doing something that the American People want, that will harm few, if any, and that the past 4-5 presidents have done is just silly political bullshit.

It's only an outrage here and with white males.

 

[fskimospy]

It's only an outrage here and with white males.

And lets be honest, I sincerely doubt a single one of them knew that presidents have done this exact same type of action for decades and decades prior to this. They were alerted to it by either this thread or right wing media and told that Obama was 'rewriting the law' or some such nonsense, and they bought it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[EagleKeeper]

<snip>
His actions are not giving them work permits, it is allowing them to apply for work permits. Stop lying.

what is the difference?

You apply for the work permit.
If it either granted or not.
Obama has removed an obstaclewhy it would not be granted; - legitimacy of presence.

All things being equal and legitimacy being the only road block; Obama has allowed them to be given a work permit.

You are splitting hair on the verbiage - the intent is still there.